On Friday(23rd August), The Supreme Court of India clarified that not all insults or intimidating comments against SC/ST individuals automatically qualify as offenses under the SC/ST Act. This ruling came while granting anticipatory bail to Shajan Skaria, who faced charges under the Act for allegedly posting a derogatory video targeting a Kerala MLA from a Scheduled Caste community.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Friday(23rd August), the Supreme Court of India clarified the scope of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court held that not all insults or intimidating comments directed at a person from a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) community automatically qualify as offenses under the Act.
The judgment came in the context of granting anticipatory bail to Shajan Skaria, the editor and publisher of the popular YouTube channel “Marunadan Malayali.” Skaria faced charges under the SC/ST Act for allegedly posting a derogatory video targeting Kerala MLA P.V. Sreenijin, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community.
A Bench comprising Justices P.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delved deep into the legal provisions of the 1989 Act. Justice Pardiwala, while delivering the judgment, remarked that the aggressor’s identity as a non-SC/ST person alone is insufficient to prosecute them under the Act simply because the victim belongs to the SC/ST community.
He elaborated-
An aggressor who is not from a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe cannot be charged under the 1989 Act solely because the victim of their insult or intimidation is from an SC/ST community.
This statement underscores the necessity for a direct and deliberate connection between the insult or intimidation and the victim’s caste or tribe identity.
Justice Pardiwala further clarified that the SC/ST Act would be applicable if the insult or intimidation was explicitly intended because of the victim’s SC/ST status. He emphasized that-
“The intentional insult or intimidation must be specifically motivated by the victim’s identity as a member of the SC/ST community.”
The judgment noted-
“There is nothing in the video transcript to suggest, even on the surface, that the allegations were made by the appellant (Skaria) solely because the complainant (Sreenijin) belongs to a Scheduled Caste. Would the appellant have refrained from making these allegations if the complainant were not from a Scheduled Caste? The answer is inherent in the question itself.”
Mr. Skaria had been charged under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST Act. Section 3(1)(r) pertains to intentionally insulting or humiliating a member of an SC/ST community in public, while Section 3(1)(u) deals with promoting hatred, ill-will, or enmity against SC/ST communities.
However, the Court clarified that mere knowledge of the victim’s caste or tribe does not suffice to attract Section 3(1)(r). For this provision to apply, the insult or humiliation inflicted must be
“closely tied to the victim’s caste identity,”
-as noted in the judgment.
Justice Pardiwala highlighted the nuances of this legal interpretation, stating-
“Not every intentional insult or intimidation of an SC/ST community member leads to caste-based humiliation. Only when the insult or intimidation stems from practices like untouchability or aims to reinforce historically entrenched beliefs, such as the superiority of ‘upper castes’ over ‘lower castes’ or ideas of ‘purity’ and ‘pollution,’ can it be considered the type of offense envisioned by the 1989 Act.”
The Supreme Court found no prima facie evidence to suggest that Skaria’s video aimed to promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will against members of the SC/ST communities.
The judgment noted-
“The video does not address or target Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in general; it was directed solely at the complainant.”
